The Temptation of Jesus. Luke 4:1-13

Disclaimer: I will, throughout this commentary, use the phrase "the satan" rather than "Satan" in the passages where "the satan" is a cast as a character in the drama. There are two camps engaged in a serious debate about the word, one which says that "Satan" is a "real person" and the other which views both "Satan" as a figurative embodiment of evil and demonic possession as contraction of an unknown illnesses, especially mental illnesses.

This debate is meaningless and a distraction. The words for "Satan" and "the Devil" are words we are often accustomed to hearing as a name, but "satan" is just the word "deceiver" and "the Devil" is the word "slanderer." When Jesus is before trial, he is accused with of being "the satan," but, of course, the Jewish religious leaders did not mean it as if Jesus was the eternal, ethereal personal embodiment of all evil associated with pitchfork and horns. It is not uncommon in Jewish literature to find personification of values, for example Wisdom, Folly, and Justice are personified in the bible and are not considered to be heavenly or demonic personalities. On the opposite side of the spectrum, there is a long Jewish custom of naming people after significant events or personal qualities: Jesus' name, and Joshua, before him, means "Savior;" the father of the Jews, Abraham, has a name that means "Father;" Isaac, who's parents laughed at God's promise of a child in their old age, was named "Laughter." The type of word that would be used for a personification of a value were, in fact, also used for common Jewish names for "real people."

The question is simply left unanswered. We can rule neither option out. If moderners find this type of unresolved equation objectionable, the fault is with us, not the original writers who are simply coming from another cultural and historical perspective. The question of whether or not "the satan" is a real person or a figurative embodiment is simply not asked by our audience and thus not addressed by the writers. It is invaluable that we not retrojected modern questions onto ancient literature, instead we should focus on what the original audience was concerned about. Namely the questions "What does the satan deceive you with?" and "What is the deceiver trying to get you to do?"

The Temptation of Jesus

The interaction between Jesus and the satan is an odd exchange to most readers. In the story, Jesus is tempted to do three things:

1. Turn stones into bread to prove that he is the son of God
2. Worship the satan and receive control over all the nations of the earth and glory for controlling history
3. Jump off the roof of the temple to prove that he is the Messiah

To most western eyes, the exchange makes no any sense at all. Many readers ask (or at least wonder) these questions:

1. What exactly would Jesus have lost if he had turned the bread to stone? How does the devil win in this scenario?
2. Doesn't God already have control of history? Isn't the satan essentially tempting God with something he already has?
3. Is the satan's third temptation really paramount to "Try to commit suicide; if God stops you, you must be the messiah," and if it is did he really think something that ridiculous would work?

Interlude: In response to this apparent lack of internal coherence, many scholars have come to the conclusion that this whole exchange was a late addition to the gospels, conceived and written long after Jesus' day. This theory states that Jesus made no claims of being divine, but around a hundred (or according to some theorists up to four hundred) years after his crucifixion the early church added stories like this one to help prop up the belief that Jesus was God. In opposition to this are conservatives who state that this exchange did actually occur to Jesus and thus proves that Jesus is indeed God.

Both theories must be rejected.

The Hebrew Bible lists great references to the coming of a messiah, however that this "servant chosen of God" would actually be God is the great plot twist -- the unexpected outcome -- of the New Testament. It has the beauty of miracle, mystery, and tension of literature's greatest abilities to surprise the reader, but sadly, because many modern readers are so fully aware of the end of the story, we are unable to realize how unexpected its plot line truly was.

For example, someone claiming to have been "born of the Holy Spirit" would, in our day, be heard as making a claim of divinity, but we make this association because of our knowledge of Jesus' life. It is imperative that we remember that Jesus' audience had no such story to build these kinds of assumptions. To any Jew at the time, Mary's claim of Jesus having been conceived by the Holy Spirit did not in any way necessitate his divinity; it simply marks his life as one chosen by God. After all, the virgin birth is just a variant of a biblical theme: namely the Hebrew Bible's use of special reproductive methods such as the late pregnancy of Sarah and Abraham, the reversal of Rebbecca's bareness, the miraculous birth of John the Baptist, and so on. A special birth imbued the meaning that one's life was being directed by God, not that one was God himself. It was the mark that one was destined to be either a Jewish prophet, priest, or king.

Likewise, the statement "Son of the most high" or "Son of God," which are used in this passage, did not indicate anything more than messianic fulfillment in Jesus day. These are claims of being the messiah, which itself has become a word associated with divinity, but which also would not have been heard as such in Jesus' day. Historically, we know of at least 20 men with the 80 years surrounding Jesus' life who claimed to be a (or the) Jewish Messiah, the vast majority of which did not claim to be divine. Messiah was simply a word which meant "anointed" or "chosen."

Belaboring this topic for one last point, a similar argument is often made about the many miracles that Jesus is said to have performed. Again with some liberal historical scholars claiming that these "miracle" events were added later to prove Jesus' divinity, and with many conservative theologians saying that these miracles occurred and thus prove his divinity (Please do not read anything into my selection of "liberals" being "scholars" and "conservatives" being "theologians," this is not to imply value in any way but to simply indicate that they come from different perspectives and thus ask different questions). Again both arguments start with the faulty premise "if someone can perform a miracle, then they must be divine." and ignores the long line of Jewish prophets who are said to have performed many miracles.

Again, both sides are radically in error. It is almost historically guaranteed that Jesus did perform some unexpected phenomenon in his time, although we cannot say with certainty exactly what it was. We know this to be certain as there are records of Jesus' opponents claiming Jesus to have performed some unknown, unexplained event by demonic power, which is exactly the kind of proof that the early church both could not and would not have created. One does not prop up a claim of divinity by inventing a counterclaim of demonic possession. The counterclaim is proof that there that there was indeed an event to which both Jesus followers and his detractors saw some great power at work, and his detractors, being unable to deny the power being displayed, could only call into question where those powers were derived.

Stated again for emphasis, even proof of some startling miracle performed by Jesus does not, in any way, have conveyed to Jesus audience that he was divine, only that he was a Hebrew prophet. Secondly, it would not have convinced a Roman audience that he was divine either as unexplained phenomenon was commonplace in the ancient world. A miracle, in our modern sense of the word, were often occurrences, as in 1st century world, many things we now understand were called "miraculous." All it can prove is that there was indeed an event in which Jesus did interact with someone or something that resulted in a phenomenon which no one at the time could naturally explain.

To jump much later in the story, Jesus does, however, makes very strong, albeit wholly Jewish claims of divinity with the use of "I AM," with his declaration of being greater than Moses, Abraham, and even Torah, itself, and with his cessation of the temple sacrifices, declaration of the temple's judgment, and reorganization of all temple practices around his very personality. Most scholars view these events as almost assuredly having occurred, because an early church composed of mostly Greek converts would not have had the intimate knowledge of Jewish history necessary to concoct these stories, nor would they have had much reason to.

The argument that several hundred years after Christ his followers added stories to make Jesus seem divine, can only be attempted on culturally universal or decidedly Roman stories, as several hundred years after Christ, Christianity had become primarily a Gentile religion and the Jewish tales would no longer have been culturally understood. For example, this argument can be attempted on the story of Jesus being born under a star, as it would be interpreted by a Roman audience as sign that one was destined to be an Roman emperor (who were considered divine), but it cannot be attempted on the decidedly Jewish statements, listed above, as most of those references would no longer be relevant to an non-Jewish audience. There would simply be no reason to insert them as they would be more likely to confuse rather than convince.

But the greatest proof that Jesus has not yet made a declaration of being divine, comes not from Jesus' himself, but from opponents' accusations in his trial (the non-biblical records of which would have been impossible for the early church to insert after the fact). It was the Pharisees' anger at the "I AM" and not the "son of God" comments which was at the heart of their investigation; it was perfectly acceptable -- and common -- to say that one was a child (or a son or daughter) of God at that time (just as many people say this now, without anyone hearing a claim of divinity), but to equate the name "I AM" to oneself was blasphemy. Likewise it was Jesus' statements about the destruction of the temple and Jesus self-exaltation above Moses (and thus Torah) that also surfaced; miracles, claims of being the "son of God," or of a virgin birth are not mentioned at all.

So it is with this knowledge of our current place in the plot arc for which we return to the temptation of Jesus. In review, Jesus will make claims of divinity, but at this place in the story's time line these claims have not yet occurred.

Again, the very fact that westerners find the passage so confusing is it's greatest asset to guaranteeing that it was indeed written down within a very short period after Jesus' death.

A First Century Jewish understanding of the Temptation of Jesus

The Setting is Important: Notes on the First "Temptation"

Most Hebrew stories are know for their brevity; they don't give unnecessary details. If they bother to include some piece of information at all, it is almost always important. In each of temptations, the satan takes Jesus to a different location; this is exceedingly important for understanding what is being discussed.

The setting for the first temptation is the desert just beyond the Jordan river. The Jordan river is the place where the Israelites, under Joshua's leadership ("Joshua" is a Hebrew word meaning "God rescues," and "Jesus" is a Hellenized version of the same name), first crossed over into the promised land after living in the desert for 40 years after the exodus from Egypt. To meet Jesus here, in this very place, and to ask him to turn stones into bread, is to invoke the memory of the only other food miracle in the desert in Israel's history, specifically when Moses provided manna in the exodus.

The satan's question should be seen not as much as temptation than question of identity and purpose: Are you to play the part of a new Joshua or a new Moses? Your people are again enslaved, are you about to free them? Your people have lost their rights to their land, are you about to lead them somewhere new? In short, are you, and the God for whom you are the representative, about to perform a second exodus?

Jesus catches the allusion to manna from heaven and responds by quoting the end of the very verse (Deut. 8:3) that the satan had alluded to:

'The Lord your God humbled you and starved you, then fed you with manna, which you had not known, nor had your father's know it, that he might teach you that man does not live by bread alone, but by all that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord'

Like most of Jesus responses, he doesn't answer the question directly, but he doesn't exactly need to. Any first century Jew, would have heard a resounding "no" from Jesus' response. Come what may, rescue, at least rescue via miraculous plagues against Israel's enemies, will not be in the cards, rather, to understand what God will do, will require the Jews to continue listening to the words that will proceeds from the Lord's mouth.

As you can see, this passages is full of allusions to Jewish literature, history, and identity, and thus could not be the additions of a later age when the church in attempting to more easily spread Christianity in the Roman world. The passage is so thoroughly Jewish that it would have been unlikely to have been adequately understood by the Roman world (the passing out of bread would more likely had Romans' draw allusions to Caesar passing out bread to promote his kingdom than the Exodus) just as it is often not understood in ours. It only gets more Jewish from here...

Bringing up the Past -- The second temptation

All three of the satan's questions bring up both Israel's ancient and recent past, but only as questions of it's current religio-political drama. The second exchange: "Worship me and I will give you all the kingdoms of the land and the glory of controlling history" is based upon the premise that God does not control history or the nations already. Although this may seem odd to us that this would be of debate at all, as in our day, one can hardly attend a religious service (and not just Christian religious services) without hearing of how "God is in control," but for a Jew in the first century this was of considerable debate.

Interlude: It was most Romans' definition, and precisely because of Rome's impact on the world, that most moderners have a definition of God that is tied up in three words: omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. We assume God to be all powerful, all knowing, and always present. For many this is the very definition of a "god," however Jews at this time, and before them the many Jews who wrote the Tanakh (what many Christian call the Old Testament), had an understanding of God that had nothing to do with these words. The Hebrew language, at the time of the writing of the Tanakh, does not even have words for these concepts yet. To ancient Jews, God is much more flexible (and eastern) than the rigid (and western) ways in which Romans thought of God. Take these example:

• In the Hebrew world, God can argue with a human -- and be convinced to make different choices -- like he does with both Moses and Abraham.
• Numerous Psalms are written begging God to hear their writer's prayer.
• Several times in the Tanakh, God, himself, claims that he will not listen to a particular person or people group because of what they have done to their neighbors or to Him, that he will "turn his ear away from them."
• Other times, God says he must go down to earth to investigate to see if what he been told is true, to determine if what he has heard is actually happening.
• The very idea that God had a special relationship with Moses is stated in terms of God knowing Moses "by name," a phrase that implies that God did not know other Jews involved in the exodus (and certainly not people in other nations) in this way.
• The 80 years wandering in the desert was said to have been caused because God wanted to test the Israelites to know what was in their hearts, which only makes sense if He did not know that already.
• In the book of Daniel, an angel is said to have been sent by God to deliver a message to Daniel, but had been delayed many months because of a great battle between angels and devils in the heavenly realm.
• God is said to have made Saul king over Israel and then, when Saul becomes a cruel dictator, is said to have regretted his decision and changed his mind (he also has nearly this same exchange with the house of Eli, a family of priests, who declares will be a linage of ministers forever, but when they use their religious power to steal from the temple's storehouse for the poor, God revokes his promise and regrets his decision)
• When Jewish families sacrificed their sons and daughter to God, he is said to have been so shocked by the event that he declared "Not only did I not command this, I could not have even imagined it! It never even entered my mind!"
• At the time of the flood, God is said to have been so tormented with grief that he "repented" of his decision to ever make mankind
• In Isaiah, God foretells a day when he shall be so filled with grief over his punishment of Israel by foreign enslavement that He will need a highway in the wilderness to be made straight for his passage (declaring that one's highway be made straight was an ancient Jewish metaphor for saying that someone needed to clean up their life), for he has given Israel double the punishment she deserved (for more on that passage, as it is John the Baptist's rallying call for repentance and baptism, please see the commentary on Matthew 3-13-17 -- coming soon!)

Furthermore, the very way in which ancient Jews thought of sin, conflicted heavily with the way in which Roman thought of omnipotence. Sin necessitated that God did not get what he wanted -- at least in the near term.

All of this is to say that the claim that the satan makes in this question would not have been immediately rejected. It was, in fact, based upon the defining question of first century Judaism: namely, "who is controlling the nations?" Let's jump to the verses the satan uses in the third temptation, to help set the stage for why this question was such an issue.

Psalms 91

The satan quotes Psalm 91 when he dares Jesus to jump from the temple. He quotes from middle of the chapter: "He will command his angels concerning you to guard you carefully; they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone."

If you wanted to make a case to a 1st century Jew that God had indeed lost control, these would be the very verses to choose. Psalms 91, is a declaration that the Jewish people have nothing to fear because God is with them: Plagues, pestilence, tricks of the satan, and attacks from foreign armies should not worry them.

The verses say: "You will not fear the terror of night, or the arrows that fly by day... A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand die at your right hand, but it will not come near you... no harm will befall you, no disaster will come near your tent."

It's a mocking allusion.

They will not be touched? No harm will come to them? These words could not be spoken without shame. The claim to the Jew's ancestral, God-given land has been replaced by foreign encampment; their economy has been squeezed dry by oppressive taxation; their army has been defeated; their sons having been killed or enslaved; their autonomous rule has been removed; and, most troubling of all, their temple has been destroyed and then rebuilt by and controlled by the Roman authorities.

They do not know the details of what will transpire, but no Jewish eye will deny they are facing a threat to their very existence. A great disaster is brewing, and the Jews can see it coming.

And come it will. Within 60 years of Jesus' death, the Jews will stage a failed uprising, lead by Bar Matthiah, and the Romans will claim to have wiped out a higher percentage of the Jewish race than the Germans did in the Holocaust. The famed forests of Lebanon will be wiped clean and turn to desert, their wood used for Roman crosses, and according to the Romans, in a single day a cross will be erected every 30 feet from Jerusalem to Rome to crucify the Jewish opposition.

When Titus Flavius Vespasian wins this battle and sacks Jerusalem (a single siege of which Josephus, a Jewish historian working for the Romans, records as killing 1,100,000 Jews), Philostratus (a Roman historian) states that "Titus refuses to accept a wreath of victory, as there is 'no merit in vanquishing people forsaken by their own God.'"

The question of whether God had indeed forsaken his people, defined Jesus' world and polarized Jesus' contemporaries. The Pharisees will argue that God still controls the nations, but that Israel deserves the punishment that she is receiving for allowing drunks, prostitutes, and intermarriage with non-Jews. Zealots will say that God will control the nations, but is waiting for Israel to show some courage and fight before Himself doing anything. The Essenes will claim that God has abandoned the world and will try to lead their people into the desert symbolizing a "spiritual" exodus from the physical realm. The Sadducees will be wholly defined by the question, saying we must get political power as to be God's hands in control the nations. Josephus, having embraced Roman omnipotence, will later argue that God had, in fact, switched sides to Rome, calling Israel to "repent and believe in him" by putting down their arms and embracing his worldview ("Repent and believe in me" was a common phrase used by all side of the conflict and meant embracing the speakers political viewpoint, not the religious connotations it has now). Welcome to 1st century Judaism.

Back to the Second Question

Deeply connected to the accusation that the satan has control over the nations is the phrase "for it [the power to rule the nations] was handed over to me."

Who does the satan refer to? The nations were handed over to him by whom?

By saying this, the satan alludes to the Lord's disturbing decision to deliver the world into Babylon's hands (Jer 27:4-10). Through time, because of Babylon's oppression and cruelty, the term "Babylon" had evolved to become more than just a reference to a particular empire. Much in the same way that "Egypt" had become synonymous for returning to slavery, "Babylon," in both the literature of the prophets and Jewish culture at large, had become synonymous with both Jewish oppression from an empire looking to rule the world, and evil itself. Multiple times Jeremiah, Nahum, Amos, Zephaniah, and Ezra relate a current world leader (or even Israel herself) to Babylon or Egypt; this of course does not mean that the Jews were confused with historical events, but that they were less concerned with telling their neighbors histories than their own. To equate certain Israeli leaders, the Assyria empire, or Rome to Babylon (and sometimes Egypt) was not to confuse geography, nationality, and ethnicity but to describe conditions of the Jewish people.

Again, the satan's question should be seen as questions of Jesus' identity and programme. Jesus' answer is yet another statement of the way Jesus saw his particular flavor of messianic purpose. Imagine the many ways that Jesus could have answered this question:

1. He could have disputed the satan's claim by saying that, despite the satan thinking he ruled the world, that God was playing the satan like a puppet on a string.

Instead Jesus answers by saying to worship God alone, again not truly commenting on the deeper issue at play in the satan's accusation but answering it nonetheless. Jesus does not deny that the satan does indeed currently rule the world, but suggests, without explanation, that one should worship God anyways.

2. As another way of answering the question, Jesus could have validated the satan's current rule and then claimed a coming reversal starting with Jesus' rise to political power.

Put more strongly: this would have been the logical place for Jesus to declare war on the satan and Babylon as a whole. God's a brash guy, to say the least, if one were to take His interactions with the Hebrews in the Old Testament to task. He's not often a God to walk away from a fight and can often be baited into one. The satan's second question should be seen as another allusion to Jewish history and another set of Jewish heroes: will Jesus be another David uniting the twelve tribes and fighting back the evil hordes coming against Israel? or a Solomon ruling a united Jewish nation and influencing the world? The Jewish terms "Messiah" and "Son of God," as earlier discussed, were no claims of divinity, but they were a clear claim of Davidic lineage and thus as true heir to the Jewish throne -- a throne that has laid empty since the real (and figurative) Babylonian captivity. In short, as Messiah are you going to claim the throne? Are you, and the God for whom you represent, preparing for a political kingdom?

Again, based upon what is noticeably absent, Jesus declares that a triumphant military and political victory isn't coming, despite which the Jews should worship God nonetheless.

The Setting for the Third Temptation - The Temple

After Jesus answering this question, the satan takes him to the temple.

Much like Psalms 91, the current temple was a place of considerable debate and difficulty. When the Babylonians attacked Israel and enslaved the people, they took everything of value. At that time, the temple was adorned in gold, and in an attempt to smelt the gold, the Babylonian army burned it down.

Within less than a lifetime of those who had been carted away to slavery, a small remnant petitioned and won the rights to return to Israel to rebuild. They discovered the brunt out temple, many of their earlier religious writings, and got to work rebuilding their nation. One of the leaders of the remnant promised that God had said the second temple would be more glorious than the first. After a decade or so of work, the temple was finished, and a great noise arose from the crowd. Those who were young cheered, but those who had not been carted off to Babylon and had seen the old temple before it was burnt wept and wailed. Ezra tells us that one could not tell the sound of the cheers from the weeping.

Not only did this second temple not live up to this promise, but despite the Romans allowing almost 100% Jewish control of the religious services, they still wanted to use the temple -- the Jewish symbol of both nation and religion -- as a reminder of Rome's power and authority and their occupation and control of Israel. The temple was used as the storage point for the record of the tax debts Jews owed Rome.

Using the temple as symbol of their oppression was so offensive to Jews that in AD 66 (or 66 C.E.), the first act of the revolt was to burn these records. (This was the start of the revolt mentioned earlier that will result in Titus Flavius Vespasian sacking Jerusalem, razing the temple, and causing over a million Jewish casualties.) Of all the things to do when the Jews finally had their freedom (if only for a short time), burning the record of debts kept in the temple was what they did first.

The Accusation at the Heart of the Third Temptation

Retuning to Psalms 91, the satan brings up the later parts of the song in the third temptation. Whereas the first section has everything to do with protecting the nation of Israel, the last few verses change tone into a more personal level of protection. They say:

The LORD says, "I will rescue him who loves me. I will protect him who trusts in my name.
When he call on me, I will answer; I will be with him in trouble. I will rescue him and honor him.
I will satisfy him with a long life and give him my salvation."

The implication at the heart of the previous question leaves the later parts of the song in question. If God no longer protects his people on a national scale, why would he protect one man? If the nation no longer mattered to God, why would one man's life -- even if he really is the Messiah?

Jesus answer, again does not fight this massive accusation inherent in the satan's question, namely that God will not rescue his servant, and instead responds that one should be faithful anyways and not test God.

The satan leaves Jesus after this, but saying that he shall return at a more opportune time. For those of us who know the rest of the story, that time is when Jesus is in the Garden of Gethsemane begging God to rescue him from the cross.

Summary

In summary, the satan offers all the sorts of improvements religion often tries to make on Jesus' mission. Satan offers Jesus (and us) the very type of religion we want: a powerful political, military movement without any shade of ambiguity. Satan offers, Jesus (and us) the chance to base the worship of a God, who never leaves anyone in the lurch (least of all his chosen son), on proof, power and authority -- not on four shakey gospels, and a naked, shamed, dying man hanging in defeat from a Roman torture device, his last words screaming that God had indeed abandoned him but that he would trust him nonetheless.